On 18/03/2013 10:42AM, Alvaro Videla wrote:
> Why then not just have one queue per GUID and use the anon exchange to
> do the routing? Then remove the queue when the GUID is not needed anymore.
I am assuming the use case involves large numbers of GUIDs with a few
messages each. Keeping track of all those queues and ensuring consumers
each get their share would not be fun.
> BTW, for a use case similar to this one is why I proposed the interval
> exchange.
But don't you have the same problem as with the CHX? When you want to
add a new queue, you have to rearrange the intervals somehow in order
for the new queue to receive any work... at which point you just broke
per-GUID message ordering.
Cheers, Simon